| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:The end of CS9 ? | |
| Posted by: | Al Webber | |
| Date/Time: | 30/05/18 15:15:00 |
| I used to cycle into central London at my previous workplace. It was a good 10 minutes quicker than the Tube. Given the cost of the Tube, the combined cost and time savings would see a lot more people cycling if they weren't put off by the supposed dangers. Those dangers are massively overstated by Evening Standard clickbait articles. Cycling is actually pretty safe. If you actually Google it, per mile travelled, cycling fatalities are actually lower than walking fatalities. Obviously, most cycling journeys are longer, so you get a different figure if you do it per journey, but that stat dies illustrate that cycling isn't nearly as dangerous as a lot of people perceive it to be. I'm not a huge fan of the CS9 scheme in it's current form, and I think it would be better on the A4 if you build a "superhighway". It would be better value for money to fix the key junctions along the route, and fix problem areas like the way the cycle lane stops and the road narrows on the zebra crossings in Chiswick. It would deliver most of the benefit for a fraction of the cost. I've said that in more detail, with reasons, on the previous threads on CS9. However, building the cycle lane is better than doing nothing if that's what TFL are willing to fund, and it won't "destroy the High Road" You are right that driverless cars will change things. They will drive far better than some of drivers on the roads - who overtake when there isn't enough room, cut you up afterwards, or who are on their mobile phones and not paying attention. That will actually make people feel a lot safer cycling, and will probably lead to an increase in the number of people cycling. |